Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ailaros wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:You cant teach playing good

TheCaptain wrote:Crush him with all your might

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:He's never going to learn if you go easy on him.

This point of view makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It would be like teaching your child to swim by throwing him in the deep end and then shouting to everyone nearby "he's never going to learn if someone helps him".

It's, at best, it's sadistic, and not even the most efficient or effective way to teach anybody anything. Instead, you should teach people things by teaching people things. That's the best way he's going to learn, not by some machismo display of repeated thuggery.

Warhammer is not a life and death situation. If you let someone win, they'll do what they did against you in other games, which presumably would not work considering that you had to let them win in order for them to win. It won't help them and will give them false confidence. Also, someone is going to tell them that you let them win, if they don't figure it out since they aren't experienced. Someone will definitely tell them, especially since they'll probably be telling everyone about how they won one of their first games. It won't go over well with them.

TheCaptain wrote:It's not dropping him into a pool to drown; no harm is caused to him by lack of success

When the new person gets frustrated and doesn't want to play any more, the harm is that you don't have anybody to play 40k with anymore. And you can't share a hobby with a friend, as he's not going to regard the game very highly if his only experiences with it are long, confusing games where he doesnt' really get to do anything and then loses in a shutout every time.

Not everybody has the patience for really steep learning curves, especially when they're not really getting any satisfaction out of the activity while they're still learning to play.

DPBellathrom wrote:You should never hold back when playing someone as it makes the fight pointless for both parties.

What is the point of playing a game of 40k?

It's to have fun. If one party isn't having fun, THEN the fight is pointless. As we've been saying, there are ways to make the game fun for both people here, and it generally involves the more experienced person not playing as hard as they possibly can with the best list they can possibly field. If this needs to be true for YOU to have fun, then you need to stay away from new players. That or expand your horizons.

DPBellathrom wrote:it's pointless for yourself as you are not growing as a player

... or stop taking the game so seriously. 40k is a dice game with shallow tactics and a low skill ceiling. You stop really growing as a player pretty early on once you get over the initial hump. It only comes in little bits and pieces after that.

Furthermore, are you implying that trashing noobs is really going to help you grow as a player? Learning how to use crappy units might, but I fail to see how winning without really much of a fight is going to.

DPBellathrom wrote:and the same goes for your opponent as if you hold back or don’t play your best then his/her victory is hollow and means nothing other than that they're able to beat someone who isn't trying.

I really question this attitude as well. If victory over someone who isn't trying is hollow, then the victory should be just as hollow if it's over one who can't try very hard due to skill deficiency.

Secondly, there is a broad definition of "trying", here. If I take a terrible list along with a 250 point handicap, and try my hardest to beat someone despite these extra challenges, I'd certainly say that I was trying. In fact, I'd be trying a lot harder than if I had brought a more powerful list, and just mindlessly pulped some noob without much effort. THAT'S what not trying looks like.

DPBellathrom wrote:Over the course of the game the player hasn’t learnt anything such as target priority if you keep feeding them easy kills or positioning if you keep yourself in the line of fire on purpose.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:If you let someone win, they'll do what they did against you in other games, which presumably would not work considering that you had to let them win in order for them to win.

Well don't do a bad job teaching him then. The existence of bad teachers does not invalidate the concept of education.

It's almost like you don't think knowledge can be passed from one person to another. Everybody always has to experience things directly for themselves, and that's the only way knowledge is gained.

I guess if you have friends who are completely devoid of the ability to think abstractly or critically about things, then you might have to resort to this method, but I'd like to think that you don't have to bludgeon your friends in a game they can't play well as the ONLY way to get your point across.

Trade armies with him, and demonstrate how to play his army well.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would recommend taking more of a battle report mindset to your games. Take some pictures, jot down major things that happen. Then after the game you can talk about mistakes made on both sides.

You da man

A while back ( last year or so ), I started a wargaming group for some of my fellow soldiers in a WTU, 3-4 at a time, and none of them had any prior experience in miniture gaming/ painting or this hobby what so ever, so obviously I ( who has almost 2 decades of experiance) should trounce them mercilessly, at every turn, and then give advice on what to do next time..so I can just trounce them again ?

all the while trying to keep them motivated to paint, assemble and expand their forces (that I just keep beating, cause I must play at my tip top game with a WAAC list , so they may learn)...not many people will stay interested in a hobby that is so expensive and a uphill slog to get to what for all beginers is the goal of actually winning..a little.

So what I did was play "training" games with them, slowly ramping up the pts and army choices, and yeah I sometimes took a few less points then them..but the dice rolled what they rolled, and I always used solid tactics, if a bit played on the fluff side.

We did rescue missions, and patrols, escalations, and fire sweeps, city fights and drop assaults, I used guard, Orks, and Tau for various games, and we had alot of fun, they wanted to get new units and build and paint them, and I ran workshops to help them on that side of the hobby.

And finally I sat back and let then smash each other in some pretty epic games, during which I would give some old timer advice when asked, but mainly I let them learn their own way, and evelop their own style of play..not make them have adapt to my playstyle in a sink or swim game setting.

and guess what..they spent 100s of dollars on minis, got their spouses to play, and are still playing even after they were deployed to other bases or retired from service, I added several players to the gaming community, and am happy to have done it.

Now, I am not so certain if I had used some of the mentoring styles some of my esteemed hobbyists here endorse, I think most of them would have said hell with this expensive game, and gone back to X-box, or PS3.

But this again is my experiance, its a hobby not a race, you dont have to push people to do better, just enjoy the ride.

I kinda' feel like there is a bit of a dichotomy here.

Half of the responses are "Go easy on the kid, or he won't have fun and he'll quit."

The other half is "Don't hold back, respect the kid by giving it all you've got, then let him learn from his losses."

Problem is, the discussion has devolved into Side A telling Side B that they are wrong because of X, and Side B saying "No, you're wrong because of Y and Z, X isn't important."

Both sides think they're right (myself guilty included). The thing here is, we don't know your friend, what kind of person he is, and what he wants out of the game.

If the kid is a competitor-type person (not competitIVE, ie. the kind that will ragequit at a couple losses) he will want you to A. not hold back for his sake, and B. he will want to learn in a realistic environment, so that he can develop his skills practically and seriously. If he is looking to be a tournament player, or simply be very very good at the game, and is patient enough to understand the merit of learning from your mistakes, then this is the route you take. You don't hold back, and you keep beating him until he is able to fight back, and eventually beat you. (Don't forget to help him and let him know what he does wrong, or you'll just be beating up on him).

If he is A. more into the game for the hobby B. into the game simply to play around with models and have fun with it C. Too impatient/sensitive to handle losing repeatedly as he develops, then like many of the others say, you need a different approach. Maybe you find a way to handicap yourself, taking weaker codex options or less points. Maybe you teach him the game bit by bit so he gets the hang of it (Take a couple transports and have him hunt them with some anti-tank units so he learns that part of the game. Do similar things with all the major facets). Point is, if he is any of these three things at the beginning of this paragraph, then no, beating him over and over probably won't do much for him as a prospective player.

It's not up to us, I realize now, as the rest should in suit. It's up to who your friend is, and what he wants from his plastic.

Cheers,
-Captain

What you need to consider is what would be the point of letting him win? If you do, the victory is meaningless because you fixed the game.

There's a difference between not completely destroying someone on turn two and letting them win.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
What you need to consider is what would be the point of letting him win? If you do, the victory is meaningless because you fixed the game.

There's a difference between not completely destroying someone on turn two and letting them win.

I am fairly certain nobody said "let him win", more like take it down a notch or two and let him learn..likely he will still lose quite a bit, but hopefully not get discouraged or develop a "such and such army is too powerful /cheesy whatever attitude" cause it keeps beating on him.

I never let anyone just win..I just make things interesting for myself, and I love it when one of the guys I have been working with whups my army, and then we all have fun.

Just tailor the experience to your buddys personality, you have advice from both sides of the fence.

roll some dice and paint some minis and have fun..its a hobby!

I was going to say "never sandbag," being my standard response. I'm a fan of the "beat it in them until they get it" school of teaching.

And then I saw that you played Necrons.

I wouldn't even consider a game against a Necron army.

So you may want to consider using a different army. Or toning things down.

No one has actually considered talking to this friend to find out what he wants?

You could play him through a scenario - A Blood angel raid on a Necron (or dark eldar) world. Start off with his army facing a quite basic (and small) force, and set him the objective of taking it out with minimum casualties.

You could swap armies - and show him how the blood angels should be played - and give him some insight into what your necrons can do.

You could write a battle report after the match from your commanders point of view - perhaps including things like "at this point I was worried that my weak unit on the flank would be assaulted, but for whatever reason the assault never came" or "I was lucky to find that the captain was foolish enough to lead from the front. Him and his special weapon team fell to the torrent of fire as easily as any other marine leaving the unit substantially weakened and no longer a threat"

But what does he want out of the game?

Have you ever thought about paying each other's army? That way he can learn how yours works, what id does well, what it doesn't, and how his compares?

It sounds to me like some of this thread has been affected by the "In the grim dark future there is only winning! Win EVERYTHING so some day the new guy will learn and win!" --I'm not seeing it. I don't go to the FLGS to shovel all my guardsmen out of their box just to shovel them off the table and put them back in their box over the course of 3 hours as I my opponent tables me, and if that ends up happening, I at least want to have some fun while I do it. If the opponent across from me has tunnel vision on the illusion of a meaningful victory that will only serve to boost his ego, then I will not play that fellow again. I'm fine with losing. I'm fine with losing against competitive lists. I'm fine with playing a cutthroat-competitive game. I'm not fine with an opponent who barely acknowledges my models and hardly cares about my existence and simply rolls dice to see how cool he is.


Yeah. Teach him. "Go Easy on" doesn't necessarily mean "let him table you turn 2." it means to tone it down a notch and play the game with different objectives than just victory in mind. Ask him what sort of set-up he would like to play. Get him involved in the match before it even starts. Makes some house rules, like "as long as someone holds this uplink to the killsat, they can call down a STR 9 AP 2 blast from orbit! Since It's shooting from orbit It scatters 3D6."

With these little rules and cool stuff, he'll learn while still being involved in the game. Make these rules and objectives interesting, dynamic and fun and I'm sure you'll see an improvement and keep him playing.

 RFHolloway wrote:
No one has actually considered talking to this friend to find out what he wants?

errr, this?

Many moons ago, one of those "win at all costs" players attempted to introduce our gaming group to 40K. Needless to say, in a group of "we do this to drink beer, eat pizza and have a fun RPG", it's one thing when someone rerolls their character at home and finds some cool items on a solo adventure. It's another to watch them chortle while they remove a third of your army per turn, especially when you say "wait a sec...that's nowhere in this rulebook you gave me!" "no, that's your rulebook. I use this rulebook". Needless to say, none of us ran out to spend hundreds of dollars to build our own armies and 40k was quietly dropped.

I've gotten back into 40K because I enjoy scifi/fantasy fiction and I enjoy painting scale models...that being said, while lurking some 40K boards for a while to look at paint jobs has shown me not everyone is like that, I still have that initial impression as representative of the tabletop game.

So, OP, if your buddy is super competitive and wants to be a tournament player or is having fun watching his army get pulped, by all means, keep educating him in the "school of necron hard knocks". Otherwise, if he's given you an indication that this 40K thing isn't what he thought it was, maybe get someone to carefully package and mail you that DE army.

@Ailaros

the point of the game is indeed to have fun, maybe it’s because my crowd of gamers is very competitive and our fun comes from full on tactical battles with neither player holding back but I believe that the most fun you can have in a game of 40K is when two players go all out against each other, pushing themselves and their armies to the limit. Only then can a victory be truly meaningful and a loss becomes another chance to grow.

While it’s true that 40K is a dice game I highly disagree that it has a low skill ceiling and the tactics are not shallow at all. And “thrashing noobs” as you so eloquently put it helps you not only keep your skills sharp but also allows the opportunity for you to pass tactics and skills onto your opponent which I would class as growing as a player.

“over one who can't try very hard due to skill deficiency”

This is false; no matter what your skill level is you can always try your hardest

“It's almost like you don't think knowledge can be passed from one person to another. Everybody always has to experience things directly for themselves, and that's the only way knowledge is gained.”

Maybe you should have read all of my post, after the game you should discuss tactics and ways to improve. And yes they should experience things directly hence why you let them do so on the battle field with a display of your own skills and tactics so they can learn while they play and then apply what they have learnt in the next game.

“I guess if you have friends who are completely devoid of the ability to think abstractly or critically about things, then you might have to resort to this method, but I'd like to think that you don't have to bludgeon your friends in a game they can't play well as the ONLY way to get your point across”

Again, read my post. It wasn’t a matter of bludgeoning them to get my point across. You demonstrate on the battle field and then explain afterwards

And Soo'Vah'Cha, no one said anything about using WAAC lists (a term that I despise as taking an optimised list is not winning at all costs). Take whatever units you like. It’s always possible to take a “fun” army and win

 Fafnir wrote:

And then I saw that you played Necrons.

I wouldn't even consider a game against a Necron army.

Haaaaa!

Yes.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Spoiler:

I kinda' feel like there is a bit of a dichotomy here.

Half of the responses are "Go easy on the kid, or he won't have fun and he'll quit."

The other half is "Don't hold back, respect the kid by giving it all you've got, then let him learn from his losses."

Problem is, the discussion has devolved into Side A telling Side B that they are wrong because of X, and Side B saying "No, you're wrong because of Y and Z, X isn't important."

Both sides think they're right (myself guilty included). The thing here is, we don't know your friend, what kind of person he is, and what he wants out of the game.

If the kid is a competitor-type person (not competitIVE, ie. the kind that will ragequit at a couple losses) he will want you to A. not hold back for his sake, and B. he will want to learn in a realistic environment, so that he can develop his skills practically and seriously. If he is looking to be a tournament player, or simply be very very good at the game, and is patient enough to understand the merit of learning from your mistakes, then this is the route you take. You don't hold back, and you keep beating him until he is able to fight back, and eventually beat you. (Don't forget to help him and let him know what he does wrong, or you'll just be beating up on him).

If he is A. more into the game for the hobby B. into the game simply to play around with models and have fun with it C. Too impatient/sensitive to handle losing repeatedly as he develops, then like many of the others say, you need a different approach. Maybe you find a way to handicap yourself, taking weaker codex options or less points. Maybe you teach him the game bit by bit so he gets the hang of it (Take a couple transports and have him hunt them with some anti-tank units so he learns that part of the game. Do similar things with all the major facets). Point is, if he is any of these three things at the beginning of this paragraph, then no, beating him over and over probably won't do much for him as a prospective player.

It's not up to us, I realize now, as the rest should in suit. It's up to who your friend is, and what he wants from his plastic.

Cheers,
-Captain

I feel like this covers it, gents. No need to keep roasting everyone.

I began my gaming at the only store in town and against people who brought hard lists. Brand new dude, getting my ass beat for months as I grew my army and my tactics.

The thing is, they all had fun kicking each other around, and I'd usually get tactics mentoring while playing one dude from all the other guys just so they could dog on the guy who got "beat by the new guy."

I ended up getting third in our 'Ard Boyz tourney that year. I moved for my job to a new place with many more stores and starting winning tournaments... now I have to tailor back my lists if I'm not in a competitive store. I still win more so (not trying to sound like TFG or a braggard... :( ), but I help my opponents in discussing their lists if they want to be competitive or just go for silly fluff if not.

Competition drives me. I model/paint for competition, I game for competition... it's just who I am. Find your friends motivation and play towards that. Find new ways to challenge yourself, proxy if you have to "for funsies". Get deeper into conversions and painting so when you do end up in a place, you have wide versed experience and a killer looking army.

Necrons are a great army to tool around with as you can synergize everything (except maybe Flayed ones). Just keep trying!

IMO.
The best way is to play your best game.
BUT take out time to explain what YOU are likely to do, and help him make the right chioces in his turn.

EG.
Talk him through how the game works , and how to make the most of his army.

DONT just play down to his mistakes, help him raise his game to meet yours.

 Ailaros wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:You cant teach playing good

TheCaptain wrote:Crush him with all your might

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:He's never going to learn if you go easy on him.

This point of view makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It would be like teaching your child to swim by throwing him in the deep end and then shouting to everyone nearby "he's never going to learn if someone helps him".

It's, at best, it's sadistic, and not even the most efficient or effective way to teach anybody anything. Instead, you should teach people things by teaching people things. That's the best way he's going to learn, not by some machismo display of repeated thuggery.

Well said I have never understood why some people think utterly crushing someone who is clearly no where near ones own level of game mastery is fun. But back to the question at hand. Yes give yourself a point handicap and do as others have mentioned, make a battle report and sit down with the person and walk him triough the game. Point out tactical errors and give him due praise when he dose rigth.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:What you need to consider is what would be the point of letting him win? If you do, the victory is meaningless because you fixed the game.

And this is where the divergence is.

I don't doubt the existence of a theoretical person who only enjoys 40k through the lens of what percentage of their maximum effort their opponent spent. That is such an absurdly tiny scope for this huge game, though, I can't think that there would be very many people who would fall into this camp. There is SO MUCH to 40k, that if there was an aberration in this ONE tiny thing, and that got the player to quit altogether, they would be a very, very rare person indeed.

For most people, there are going to be a lot of factors that influence whether a person really gets into the game or not, and you should play to those things, rather than to just this very rare one. Even if you have to explicitly let your opponent win a couple of times, if that's what it takes to keep their interest up long enough to actually stick with it and learn stuff, then that's what you should do.

Of course, as mentioned, you don't need to let your opponent explicitly win either. You don't have to rub your handicap in your opponent's face, and then, when he wins, rip your shirt of, do a cave man dance on the table, and then shout "yeah, well I played with 200 fewer points, so it's still like I won!"

I mean, how bruised of an ego do you have to have not to be able to break out of your selfish "try and win at all costs" shell, and actually teach a friend something in the way in which they're going to learn it?

Yes, the captain may be right, there is a longshot chance that the person in question will want to be bludgeoned repeatedly over dozens of games over a year before they finally get it. But come on, a vast majority of people aren't like that.

 DPBellathrom wrote:
it's pointless for yourself as you are not growing as a player

Serious question time.

What are you learning as a player in this situation? He's not giving you a challenge - he doesn't understand the game enough. You're learning that you can punch a punching bag. If you need to ruin someone elses hobby to reiterate this to yourself, you really need to look at why you're playing the game with that person.

Bring your best possible list and table him. And when you're done with that, hand a 3rd grader some university level math problems. Because that's how you learn, right?

People here seem to think "go easy" means "let him win". Don't let him win. Just play on his level.

TheCaptain said:

It's not up to us, I realize now, as the rest should in suit. It's up to who your friend is, and what he wants from his plastic.

It's true. I didn't have a very strong opinion on this topic when I started reading this thread, but as I progressed along the posts, the arrogance that is bred by the anonymity of posting some topic on a forum and hiding behind an avatar led me to begin taking a side to the point that I began to get upset at certain posters because they "wouldn't see reason" when in reality, who friggin' cares? The OP knows his friend best, he was just asking for some advice on how other players would go about doing it! In the end it's going to be his call, and I don't know why this has devolved into a debate when at the end of the day, everyone is going to keep their original opinions and emotions are going to get involved. But we loves ourselves some mud flinging, I guess...

 DPBellathrom wrote:

the point of the game is indeed to have fun, maybe it’s because my crowd of gamers is very competitive and our fun comes from full on tactical battles with neither player holding back

This invalidates everything you've said in this thread. 40k is not a "full on tactical game". In any way.

 Testify wrote:
40k is not a "full on tactical game". In any way.

Wrong.

The definition of tactical here being "adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose."

If you're not using planning or maneuvering in 40k, you must be awful.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Testify wrote:
40k is not a "full on tactical game". In any way.

Wrong.

The definition of tactical here being "adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose."

If you're not using planning or maneuvering in 40k, you must be awful.

...I wish it were against the rules to reply to someone just saying "Wrong." or "No.". If you did it to someone in real life it'd be regarded as very rude. Anyway.

It's pretty obvious that the "tactical" aspect in 40k is minimal. You may as well say there was a random aspect in chess because there's a chance you could be sick on the chess board and forfeit the game.

You want to play a tactical game, play Hearts Of Iron, Europa Universalis, The Operation Art of War. 40k is barely a step above snakes and ladders.

 Testify wrote:


It's pretty obvious that the "tactical" aspect in 40k is minimal. You may as well say there was a random aspect in chess because there's a chance you could be sick on the chess board and forfeit the game.

You want to play a tactical game, play Hearts Of Iron, Europa Universalis, The Operation Art of War. 40k is barely a step above snakes and ladders.

No. Wrong.

The tactical aspect of 40k is manipulating odds in your best possible favour. That's what you don't seem to understand, or refuse to for the sake of argument. I've seen the same argument before, and it's always "Wahhh, dice are random, it's a game of luck." Sure, dice are random, but every decision you make for that 2 hours is a tactical one. Unless you're bad at the game.

See, even in the military, not everything is mathematical and guaranteed odds. Hence why stuff like Mogadishu goes down; random, poor luck. No one can guarantee your fireteam is going to make every shot they are ordered to, just like no one can guarantee that 1/6 of your scout sniper's shots are going to rend. If you think because the game is played with dice, it equates to the same strategy level of "snakes and ladders" then you don't fully understand how to play 40k. Which is a shame, because once you get into the gameplay of making tactical decisions on a squad-based level, it's very engaging.

Try it out,
-Cap

Id say it depends on your friends personality if he expects you to give it your all id say stay as is. if hes not very good and wants help build him up to you're necrons with your dark eldar. even give him tips if he wants them. i for one needed help on my tactics yet my brother kept fighting me with faitweaver oblits demons zerkers nurgal-marines and squished me in 3-4 rounds and i try not to play him now he has no tournament off switch.

Yea, part of the issue here I think is your list and his list. When I go to a tourney, I know I'm going to see certain types of lists. Part of the fun is playing and competing against those types of lists. If you are playing a list that happens to be one of the strongest lists in the game right now, that's a dis advantage to anyone who isn't tailoring against it. Add in the fact that he is new to the game and not playing a super tourney competitive BA list and that's a tough up hill battle.

In that light, I think the best advice here is to switch armies for a few games.

 Lobukia wrote:
Just don't do the secret handicap thing. Be honest, give him an extra 250 points, and hack it out.

Seconded. Tell your opponent you are taking a handicap so he has a chance, and also tell him once he learns a few things about the game you'll fight him fair and square.

And ofc, you could fight non-standard scenarios... Say put your Necrons to defend an objective and let the Blood Angel recycle destroyed units to coma back in and attack you. Then check how many points either of you took out once the game is done.